I would like to know if I can feel safe here, or if I should pack it up and start looking elsewhere sooner rather than later.

If the kbin staff have already made there intentions clear, please let me know.

  • Rabbithole@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    152
    ·
    1 year ago

    We (meaning the whole fediverse, all instances) need to be de-federating that crap immediately.

    Nothing good will come from having Facebook streaming into here in anyway whatsoever.

    The Fediverse as a whole needs to be a separate place so that people can leave places like that.

    Also, if Facebook is allowed to “work with” the development of the fediverse at all, they absolutely will eventually destroy it for profit. And “working with” it absolutely includes them federating with it.

    When their vast resources are taken into account, and their existing userbase also, they would rapidly become the main instance (or collection of, but probably just one) of the whole fediverse. Once that’s them, they can use that position to dictate terms pretty hard.

    Before you know it, everyone that would eventually have come here are there instead, and they’re now the fediverse. They can also fork the software and leverage their Dev teams to make their fediverse vastly more polished… No donations needed on their fediverse, less bugs, everyone you know is already over there… Seem familiar?

    How does that effect us who aren’t there, how isn’t it just the same thing as now? Our fediverse dies off because the users leave, instances close down through lack of population/need, before you know it there’s nobody here and the idea just dies.

    Literally been done before. The playbook is absolutely common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Fediverse as a whole needs to be a separate place so that people can leave places like that.

      The beauty of the fediverse is precisely that it is not monolithic. Each instance can be different, have different policies and decide who it wants to federate with. Some instances will federate with anyone, some with most, some with a few, some with none.

      The claim that that the fediverse needs to be a monolithic whole, where all instances walk in lock-step with each other is entirely at odds with the fediverse philosophy.

      • duringoverflow@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        ·
        1 year ago

        this argument makes sense only if you’re talking about defederating instances. It doesn’t make sense here. The problem is not whether we want the users of meta’s instances. The problem is whether we want a huge corp be part of the fediverse. And why are we talking about it? Because people are trying not being naive and believing that meta is here because they liked the ideas of a federated network and want to participate. Meta will cause more harm than good as it has already happened in the past in different technologies/projects.

        • laurens@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          This conversation has been going on Mastodon for a while now. The problem kind of boils down to the following: there are people who think Meta is a bad actor and having the literal entire rest of the fediverse defederating is the best way of dealing with that. And there are people who also agree that Meta is a bad actor, and think that partial defederation is the best way of dealing with it.

          Its really hard to come (read: impossible) to come to a consensus on this, because part of the argument about what is a better tactical approach depends on knowing how Threads implements things like account portability, and this is currently unknown. Most people even assumed that Threads would not implement this at all, but Adam Mosseri just announced that this is an important feature, so who even knows.

          • Machinist3359@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s an unpopular opinion here, but I truly think Meta joining is being a little blown out of proportion.

            The fediverse is simply not valuable enough to EEE. We’re a tiny niche of nerds who all have ublock installed. Meta wants a low effort solution to eat Twitters lunch, and saw bluesky do well.

            We could even see this as an opportunity to grow. You can join mastodon AND find famous people to follow. Thread users themselves may realize the moderation sucks and go elsewhere.

            Defedrating at best makes Threads roll back their activitypub use…and their millions of users are in a walled garden again. We did it fedi!

        • masterspace@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only thing naiive is the people in here thinking that defederating from Meta accomplishes anything whatsoever.

          Oh boo hoo, meta’s instance is shinier than ours, doesn’t that mean users will leave? Yeah, look around, they already will and are leaving for Meta’s platforms, they have more users on Threads in 24hrs than the Fediverse has had in it’s entire life.

          Nothing about defederating changes that.

          • duringoverflow@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            the defederation has nothing to do with “reducing meta’s number”. The reason to defederate is so you’re not playing their game with their own rules. Fediverse will gain absolutely nothing by playing meta’s game.

            • masterspace@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Everyone keeps talking in analogies like “playing their game” because if you said “we gain nothing by getting a ton of free content from Threads users” it would sound ridiculous.

              • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, I’ll give you a non-analogy argument. That “ton of free content from Threads users” is not desireable. In fact, if early reports are anything to go by, Threads is already largely populated by brands and thoughtfluencers, all in a race to the bottom to capitalize on mindshare in a new, unexplored space.

                IMO, neither that content nor those users would be beneficial for the fediverse in the long run.

              • duringoverflow@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                i’m not here for the ton of content that meta will produce. If I wanted this content I would had been there in the first place. It looks like somebody else is in the wrong place and is dreaming of a fediverse full of brands trying to promote their products and the influencers pretending they are real life advertisements.

                its funny that you measure value by that metric.

                • masterspace@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, I’m just not willfully blind to the fact that social networks are only valuable when people use them. Reddit wasn’t great because it was a niche forum with a handful of decentralized tech enthusiasts, Reddit was great because it was a big non-gatekeeping umbrella that welcomed everyone.

                  • Ragnell@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Here’s the thing. No matter what the Supreme Court says, a corporation is NOT a person.

                    Facebook/Meta can’t be welcomed, it is a construct without feeling. It is a massive profit-driven engine with no sense of fairness or ethics.

                    Anyone who uses Facebook can be welcomed, provided they make accounts and instances. But to allow a profit-driven engine like Meta to run an instance? That’s not a good idea.

                  • duringoverflow@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    sure. But reddit was very far from what FB and instagram are. The culture that FB and/or instagram bring with them, is something that if I liked, I would had been there already

              • jaye@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Flip it around and you got it. “Why would we want to provide free content to threads users?”

                • masterspace@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Kbin, ~57,000 users in a few months
                  Threads, ~10,000,000 users in a day

                  I don’t think you understand the scale of the dynamics at play. Quantity != quality, but even if Kbin were to take all of Reddit’s market share, there would still be orders of magnitude less content than Meta/Twitter.

          • Eggyhead@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh boo hoo, meta’s instance is shinier than ours

            I’m neither in favor nor against defederation, I’m fine letting the community make that decision. But if you think this is the argument being made you haven’t been paying any attention at all.

      • Rabbithole@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        If this were just some problematic instance (or a group of them, even) I’d entirely agree with you, but this is Facebook, the damage that they’re almost certainly planning and are entirely capable of requires (at least in my opinion), a different solution.

        Please note that I’m suggesting this as an entirely unusual solution to a very unusual problem. Not as some sort of standard practice.

        • masterspace@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You haven’t articulated a problem, let alone described how this particular solution solves it. Meta building a better version of your platform that siphons away users is a problem regardless of whether or not you federate with them / regardless of whether their platform is even built to support activitypub. Federation has no bearing on that one way or another.

          • all-knight-party@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t want content stemming from a place that’s controlled by advertisers and other large companies. If we’re federated with Meta then that means your decentralized independent instance would still have advertiser driven, heavily capitalist and consumer manipulative content domineering and running through its veins.

            That’s a specific thing that I’ve read many people enjoy getting away from when it comes to joining the Fediverse.

    • Xeelee@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fully agree. The reason I’m here is to escape corporate shitfuckery. if you expect anything other than more shitfuckery from Meta you’re either a shill or hopelessly naive.